Lord of the Flies meets Outbreak

Rating: 8/10 (30 June 2003)

Danny Boyle is an exceptionally gifted filmmaker and I've been enamored with his work since the brilliant "Shallow Grave." "Trainspotting" only gets better every time you see it and "A Life Less Ordinary" has some bright moments. (The singing and dancing number is parfait.) Mr. Boyle hit a bump in the road when it came to "The Beach," but then he forsake us all by casting DiCaprio. He's back to redeem himself, as is Alex Garland, with "28 Days Later," a marvelous twist on the apocalyptic film.
IMDB's summary isn't completely accurate in that "nearly the entire planet has been wiped out." But that's a plot twist you'll have to uncover for yourself. What occurs - a la "12 Monkeys" - is while trying to expose the work taking place at a primate research center, a group of activists unwittingly release a virus called rage. The way it works is if a person is bitten by an infected person, he or she develops a murderous rage and desire to kill within 10 to 12 seconds. (Infection can also occur if the afflicted person's blood enters another person's body, through the nose, eye, mouth or open wound.)
Twenty-eight days after being hit by a car, Jim, a bike courier and our film's hero, wakes up to find London deserted. He eventually meets two other survivors and then encounters another two. After picking up a radio broadcast that calls all uninfected people to Manchester, the survivors fight off the infected and make their way to what seems like the promised land. Complications follow is all I'll say.
Some have compared this film to George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead," giving some people the wrong impression that this is the British take on the zombie flick. Wrong. The infected aren't zombies but they are terrifying. They can be killed and the director doesn't gross us out by showing the infected feasting on human flesh. (All in all, "28 Days" isn't visually disgusting. It's the thought of what's going on that bothers you.)
The acting in this film is really first rate, with Cillian Murphy giving an emotionally compelling performance. As in most Boyle films, the camera work also is exceptional and in the first part we are shown some phenomenal long shots of an evacuted London with a soundtrack devoid of sound. The effect is gooseflesh raising. Boyle also adds in other nice touches, like a bunch of goldfish swimming in about five inches of water. (Symbolism?) And a scene with wild horses is another fine moment.
The story too goes beyond what we might expect. We get the jumps associated with zombie films - they come out of no where and travel in packs - and yet the heroes don't come off too much better. One character suggests that the virus, by killing off humankind, returns things to normalcy. Christopher Eccleston, a terrific actor, retorts that before the virus man killed man and now he's still doing it. So what's changed? The film also suggests that to save yourself, you would have to kill anyone - child, adult; family member, stranger. And these characters do. But what's noteworthy is we see how having to make those sorts of decisions affects them, particularly Jim.
Like Lord of the Flies, the film strips away the civility we all think we possess and demonstrates that we, too, are bound by the laws of the animal kingdom - it's survival of the fittest and to have a future we need to reproduce.
Another reviewer said the film fell apart after the first 45 minutes when, in fact, I felt it only got stronger. The last half of the film proved to be very intense. Garland truly raised the stakes.
If you enjoy your scares with a bit more thought to them, "28 Days Later" won't disappoint. (And if you do, try these similar films - "12 Monkeys," "Quiet Earth" and "Lord of the Flies.")